Bite the bullet and buy yourself a Tormek and a couple of their jigs and
forget about how your going to sharpen your chisels.
If you don't have the cash go through some of your junk that you don't want
and put it on EBay and you'll get enough cash to buy it. That's what I did.


"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

"George" george@least wrote in message

This is a topic often discussed as well. I'd suggest you take a look at
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq...e.segment.html and perhaps
download the spreadsheet. Plug in a chord length of a generous .375"
(beginning of bevel to edge) and the radii of 3" and 4" to see how very
little difference we're talking about.

I have a graphic geometry/trig. program on this computer--plugged in the
respective radii and voila, not much apparent difference when
superimposed.
However I can visually see the difference between a bevel produced on my
6"
grinder vs. one on the same tool produced by my 8" grinder.

Now notice that if you want the smoothest cut, you skew the edge, which
renders the concavity entirely irrelevant in use. Concavity is to
accommodate honing. You have to take less metal off to renew the edge,
because there's none in the middle.

This makes sense.

If you're still a believer, might want to decide where, between 8 and 6,
you
want to replace your otherwise useable wheel, and ship the unused
portion
to
me....

I went to an 8" grinder to accommodate the larger wheels based upon my
interpretation of what I was reading. But many herein use 6" grinders
(which I also own) with apparently good results and no problems. Guess
it's
a non-issue. So why do the instructional books make such a big deal of
it?
The implication is that if you don't have 8" wheels, or larger, you might
as
well take up knitting baby blankets in lieu of turning.

Max